End The Military's Ban On Homosexuals

November 18, 1992

President-elect Bill Clinton reiterated last week his intention to remove the ban against homosexuals in the military. The president-elect's promise coincided with the reinstatement of a gay sailor in the Navy, pending a final ruling on his court challenge to the half-century ban.

Although it's past time to remove all artificial barriers from joining the armed forces, the issue remains volatile. Last weekend, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, said gays should not be allowed to serve in the military. The Pentagon brass is also opposed to removal of the ban.

Why? Because homosexuality undermines discipline and morale, these defenders of discipline and morality argue. But there have been gays in the military for as long as nations have had armies. And there will continue to be gays in uniform, regardless of the ban.

Most governments don't ban gays from the military. Their armed forces aren't plagued with discipline and morality problems, at least not more than the no-gays-allowed U.S. forces.

Polls show that most Americans favor lifting the ban. The General Accounting Office has determined that the prohibition is not backed up by scientific or sociological evidence, yet the ban costs the Pentagon $27 million yearly in investigations.

Duty to one's country should have nothing to do with sexual orientation, and a soldier shouldn't be prevented from serving simply because he or she might make other soldiers feel uncomfortable, any more than blacks should be banned from the military because they might make some white soldiers uncomfortable.

Rather than worrying about discomfort, military leaders charged with defending the nation's liberties should start thinking about applying the tenets of tolerance within their own ranks